PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court Mr. Karner complained, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for home) of the Convention, that the Supreme Court’s decision not to recognise his right to succeed to a tenancy after the death of his companion amounted to discrimination on the ground of his sexual orientation. After lodging the application with the Court, the applicant passed away. Although there were no heirs wishing to pursue the applicant, the Court continued the examination of the case because [t]he Court considers that the subject matter of the present application – the difference in treatment of homosexuals as regards succession to tenancies under Austrian law – involves an important question of general interest not only for Austria but also for other States Parties to the Convention. […] Thus, the continued examination of the present application would contribute to elucidate, safeguard and develop the standards of protection under the Convention.357 In contrast, in the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, the relatives of one of the deceased applicants were not able to continue the application. Here, several Somali and Eritrean applicants complained about their return by Italy to Libya and ultimately to their countries of origin. Two of them passed away after filing the application. The Court held that since their complaints were identical to those submitted by the other applicants, on which it will express its opinion […] the Court sees no grounds relating to respect for human rights secured by the Convention and its Protocols which, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, would require continuation of the examination of the deceased applicants’ application.358 g) The Loss of Victim Status The question whether or not an applicant can claim to be a victim of the alleged violation “is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention.”359 The applicant may lose status as a victim if he or she has succeeded in obtaining a favourable decision from the domestic courts in respect of his or her Convention complaints. However, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not always sufficient to deprive him or her of victim status; in order for this to happen, the national authorities must have acknowledged the breach, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for it.360 357 Ibid., § 27. 358 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, 23 February 2012, § 58. 359 E. v. Austria, no. 10668/83, Commission decision, 13 May 1987; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, 7 May 2005, § 30. 360 Eckle v. Germany, no. 8130/78, 15 July 1982, § 66; Lüdi v. Switzerland, no. 12433/86, 15 June 1992, § 34; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, 28 September 1999, § 44; Scordino v. Italy (No. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, 29 March 2006, §§ 179–180; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, § 115. 111